Biblical Archaeology and Identity: Israel Finkelstein and his Rivals During the 1990s and in the early 21st century, a new current in biblical archaeology became dominant. A new school from Tel Aviv University, led by Israel Finkelstein, Ze'ev Herzog and Nadav Na'aman, rejected the circular reasoning of traditional archaeology and presented a more mature and critical approach. By Shimon Amit Editor, HPS-Science.com History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science May 2016 Abstract The article traces the sociopolitical and rhetorical aspects of the discourse in biblical archaeology in contemporary Israel. Through the article I will show that research and theoretical interpretations cannot be separated from identities and socio-political biases. Generally, Zionist archaeologists are much less skeptical towards the Bible than Palestinian archaeologists, pro-Palestinian minimalists or Israeli post-Zionists. Since the 1990s, a new school from Tel Aviv University has been developing and promoting a new paradigm of Low Chronology, which denies the existence of a United Monarchy in the days of the Judahite Kings David and Solomon. Despite the success of the new paradigm, a conservative school, whose prominent representatives come from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, challenges the new paradigm and tries to protect or update the old paradigm of High Chronology. The most controversial excavation sites today are the City of David site and the ancient city excavated at Khirbet Qeiyafa. The article analyzes the struggle between the schools about the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, as it reflects in articles, books, lectures, presentations, interviews and heated debates in the media. Zionism and Biblical Archaeology I will start with a brief review of the development of biblical archaeology against the background of the Judeo-Christian faith and the Zionist identity. Since the end of the 19th century, Christian archaeologists had excavated with a Bible in one hand and spade in the other. Archaeologists, such as William Foxwell Albright (1968) and Roland de 1 Vaux (1965), assumed that the sacred texts cannot be doubted. Their aim was to affirm the biblical narrative using archaeological finds, while interpreting these finds according to the biblical narrative. The Bible was also a key element in shaping the national ethos by David Ben-Gurion, the leader of the Zionist movement and the first Prime Minister of Israel, and the vaguely secular Israeli establishment (Ben- Gurion, 1957; Sand, 2009: 105-115; Silberman and Small (eds), 1997; Abu El-Haj, 2002). The Zionist archaeologists who followed Albright, de Vaux and the Christian archaeologists - e.g. Yigael Yadin (1975), Benjamin Mazar (1974) and Yohanan Aharoni (1957) - were part of the ruling elite in Israel and they adopted the practice of Bible in one hand and spade in the other. Yadin was a Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Head of Operations during the 1948 war, the second Chief of Staff of the IDF and a Minister. Mazar was the president of the Hebrew University. Also, he was the brother-in-law of the second President of Israel Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and had close relations with Ben Gurion. Aharoni founded the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University. He and Yadin parted ways and became rivals. The rivalry between the departments of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv University, which is described below, had begun here. Yet, despite the rivalry, both Yadin and Aharoni were determined to protect the biblical narrative, i.e. the foundation of the national ethos. In this sense, they represented the entire generation. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Danger of Biblical Minimalism Christian archaeology and Zionist archaeology were characterized by Biblical maximalism, that is, by the acceptance of the biblical narrative as a reliable and fundamental historical source to which all other evidence must be adjusted. This approach was challenged by the rise of a new paradigm in Europe of biblical scholars known as the biblical minimalists. The reaction of the minimalists was directed against noted biblical scholars, such as Albrecht Alt (1966) and Martin Noth (1960). Liberation Theology (i.e., the rejection of the Bible as a privileged text that justifies colonialism and imperialism) and the radical intellectual- political currents in the academy of the late 1960s were the background in which biblical minimalism appeared. The representatives of biblical minimalism, Niels Peter Lemche (1988; 2008: 316-317) and Thomas Thompson (1992; 1999) of the University of Copenhagen, along with Philip Davies (1992) and Keith Whitelam (1996) of the University of Sheffield, are very skeptical about the biblical narrative and criticize the 2 commitment of biblical scholars and archaeologists to the Judeo-Christian faith and to the Zionist identity. The minimalists separate the mythical Israel as depicted in the Bible from the historical Israel. They argue that the biblical narrative was shaped only after the Destruction of the First Temple and the Babylonian exile (6th century B.C.E.), i.e. during the Persian Period (circa 5th-4th centuries B.C.E.) and even during the Hellenistic Period (circa 3rd-2nd centuries B.C.E.). The attack of the biblical minimalists on the Judeo-Christian and Zionist biases of biblical archaeology and biblical studies caused an academic stir and the biblical minimalists were accused of anti-Semitism and anti- Israeli agenda (Thompson 2011; 2001; Dever, 2003; Whitelam, 1996: 46; Rendsburg, 1999). The above mentioned biblical scholars are not anti- Semitic, as some of their opponents claim. Yet their critique and rejection of biblical maximalism and Zionist archaeology are intertwined with their critique of the Zionist ethos and their pro-Palestinian views. In this respect, none of the combatants can claim to be unbiased. Research and theoretical assumptions cannot be separated from socio-political views and cultural identity. Thompson’s view and work are clearly pro- Palestinians. For example, he was a director of the Toponomie Palestinienne project, which “criticized the Israelis for de-Arabicizing Palestinian toponomy and doing damage to this region’s cultural heritage” (Thompson, 2011). Similarly, in his reply to Dever and others, Davies openly presents a pro-Palestinian agenda: The danger is thus that biblical scholarship is “Zionist” and that it participates in the elimination of the Palestinian identity, as if over a thousand years of Muslim occupation of this land has meant nothing (Davies, 2002). Whitelam’s work, as well, is explicitly pro-Palestinian, as appears from the subtitle of his book The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History (1996). Following Edward Said, Whitelam argues that the discourse of biblical studies is “part of the complex network of scholarly work which Said identified as ‘Orientalist discourse.’ The history of ancient Palestine has been ignored and silenced by biblical studies because its object of interest has been an ancient Israel conceived and presented as the taproot of Western civilization.” Whitelam complains that while the minimalist discourse is presented as political and ideological, the dominant discourse is presented as objective and unbiased. Moreover, Whitelam and others accuse biblical archaeologists, such as Israel Finkelstein, of being biased towards “the search for the national entity ‘Israel’ in the Late Bronze-Iron Age transition,” thus 3 marginalizing and dismissing Canaanite areas which they do not see as important and relevant to the understanding of Israelite Settlement (Whitelam, 1996: 1-18). Biblical archaeology is part of the war of narratives between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Zionist-Israeli and Arab-Palestinian identities play a major role in the construction of expectations, assumptions, theoretical biases and interpretation of data. The Palestinian side, of course, is biased towards biblical minimalism. Palestinian archaeologists, such as Hani Nur el-Din and Jalal Kazzouh, reject the Zionist archaeology and identify continuity between the Palestinians and the Canaanites. Others, like Hamden Taha, do not accept this identification of the Palestinians with the Canaanites and claim that it is just a response to the Israeli practice of archeology (Draper, 2010 Eltahawy and Klein, 1998; Wallace, 2013). In 2000, archaeologist Khaled Nashef of Birzeit University established the Journal of Palestinian Archaeology, which challenges biblical archaeology in the name of the silenced and deprived narrative of the Palestinians. An example of how the Palestinian critique of biblical archaeology is intertwined with the Palestinian critique of Zionism can be found in the work of Nur Masalha (2007: 1, 10). A New Phase in Biblical Archaeology The disintegration of the engaged society, or the enlisted society as it is called in Israel, and the decline of socialist-Zionist collectivism during the late 1970s, enabled the rise of different narratives and discourses. For instance, the New Historians, some of them post-Zionists, challenged the Zionist narrative regarding the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the 1948 war and the Palestinian refugee problem. During the 1990s and in the early 21st century, a new current in biblical archaeology became dominant. A new school from Tel Aviv University, led by Israel Finkelstein, Ze'ev Herzog and Nadav Na'aman, rejected the circular reasoning of traditional archaeology and presented a more mature and critical approach.